Gettysburg makes the cover of US News and World Report

[blue_zouave]

In the interest of saving space, and to avoid copyright infringement, here is a link to the site:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...sc/30civil.htm

Zou

[hoosier]

There is no doubt that some members of the Confederate Army were, indeed, slaveholders. Still, I have a feeling that the average CSA soldier was far more likely to be a poor dirt farmer who did not own any slaves and had no prospects of ever being able to afford any.

In my opinion, it is preposterous to assert that such men chose to leave their homes and families and experience long periods of severe personal hardship – interspersed by acute episodes of the most profound mortal danger - solely so that a few rich plantation owners could keep their darkies in line.

While the author of the referenced article eventually gets around to a grudging admission that there might have been some Civil War participants who were influenced by issues such as states’ rights or the preservation of the Union, his piece seems to be dominated by a neo-Reconstructionist viewpoint that the Civil War was fought over the single issue of slavery and that, on that issue, the North was 100% right and the South was 100% wrong.

The author indicates that he believes the National Park Service is about to start promoting this viewpoint at Gettysburg and other battlefields. I can only hope that the author has misread the Park Service’s intentions.

[sean_harris]

Sir,

Excuse me while I vomit. Lest the writer not forget "Massa Lincoln", R.G.("When We Gonna Get the Blue Suit) Shaw, and others who bravely fought to end slavery because it tore at the very moral fiber of a devote and noble Northern society. Lest the writer not forget it was this same Government that took how many years to come to this startling revelation. Hmmm, I wonder.

Slavery was wrong however, we have done several things in our past and present that are wrong. Why is it the same Oppressive yet, Noble Government is the one that always gets the credit for doing the right thing? Where are they and how due they solve the problems when it is in its infancy stages. I guess a few generation of politicians (Or our Founding Fathers)were not to concerned until most of the Nation wanted to leave. I'm not saying the South was right, but I won't say our own Government was right either. Sitting around while something happens and then trying to force something on an individual, while you let it happen is wrong!

Question, how many of us could raise arms against our homes and loved ones because the Government said so? I think the average man was more concerned about protecting his loved ones and what little property he owned from a Federal Army than protecting the "Evil Institution of Slavery." And from what little I can gather the average Northern soldier was not fighting to free the slaves either.

Just my 2 cents
PS
I realize the issues run much deeper and are more complicated than this or that we will ever come to understand.

[unionblue]

Sean, while I tend to agree (heck, I know for a FACT) that most men in the Federal army were not fighting for the abolition of slavery (mainly for the preservation of the Union) I do not see how anyone could NOT see that the war was fought over that single issue.

I will also agree that most men in the Southern army were NOT fighting to preserve slavery for others, they fought as the one rebel soldier said, "because your down here."

You also make mention of the fact that the Government did nothing to prevent the coming war, that through it's inaction, it permitted the war to come and then claimed credit for the results.

Sean, again, as on another post you have stated this on, what about the 3/5's rule? What about the debates and compromises of Henry Clay? What about the Fugitive Slave Law being made a part of the Constitution? What about the repeal of the MO compromise? It seems like again and again, the government was trying to deal with the situation, not just letting it happen.

No, the government was not right in all it's actions, being a pretty young republic, I guess/know we have made a few mistakes along the way.

But I feel the article was rather balanced and brought up an important point that Connie has brought up on her thread elsewhere on this board. Why did all those men at Gettysburg try to kill each other? Over shoes? Not bloody likely.

And friend George, why did the South leave the Union? What did the South get so agitated over when they were proclaiming States rights. I am afraid the paper trail exists from each and every State that left the Union and declared their reasons in their articles of secession and cannot be denied.

That the parks are going to include this bit of information to the public should not detract one wit from the courage and sacrifice of the Southern soldier. I find it satisfying that Northern attitudes will be presented that the majority state they were not fighting to free the slaves. The idea needs to be presented that the North was not that noble or the 100% good guy in the struggle.

But the why of the war should be presented. Not to do so is to ignore history and, God forbid, force us to repeat it.

Unionblue

(Message edited by unionblue on September 26, 2002)

[hoosier]

My original post was focused on the motivation of the individual soldier, rather than on the rationale for secession. We seem to be in agreement that not every individual soldier was motivated solely by desire to either preserve or abolish the institution of slavery.

I do not have access to the paper trail from each and every state that left the Union. I have to admit, though, that while I certainly agreed that slavery was a key issue, I was firmly of the belief that all the various declarations of secession would have named some other reasons (such as unfair tariff practices, for one example) in justification of their action. I would have bet the ranch and the dog on it.

I have now been shown a copy of Mississippi's declaration of the causes for secession. If I had bet on that one, I would be ranchless and dogless. The document makes it quite clear that the preservation of slavery was far and away the primary concern of those who wrote it. Other things are mentioned, but all of them are related to slavery.

If I ever find the time and the energy to review all the different Confederate states' secession resolutions, I still have hope that I will find one or more that mention some other cause or causes besides slavery, but I would clearly be wrong in stating that all of the states that seceded justified the secession, even in part, on bases other than slavery.